That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave...

Yeah, Okay. But as Phantom said: He didn't flee.

He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return. Fleeing has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to leave or not.

flee/flē/Verb:Run away from a place or situation of danger.

Right now so called 'experts' are writing in swedish media saying that 'He should come to Sweden for questioning. The whole investigation will be thrown in the trashcan anyway because there is not enough evidence'. If that is the case, then I wonder why there is so much effort being put into this?

The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it. It goes both ways. It was pretty simple until he refused to go back to Sweden, failed appealing extradition a handful of times, then sought asylum in ecuador.

UK->US extradion isn't as easy as it might seem; a case like it, a UK citizen who was charged with hacking the US defense system, has been stalled in the courts here for 8 years. While he is not a UK citizen the fact he is a commonwealth one might complicate matters. (IANAL and all that)

Extradition of citizens is a totally different matter than extraditing foreign nationals. When you extradite a citizen all your other citizens start questioning if you'd do the same to them. When you extradite a foreign national, people might get upset, but they won't be paranoid about their own safety.

Do you have a source for details of the specific allegations against Assange? There seems to be a lot of conflicting information floating about.

If you want his side of the story, look up the 'justice 4 assange' site. For a good in-depth analysis of what happened, watch the "sex lies and julian assange" documentary by Four Corners, linked in the OP.

That's not what happened. Sweden issued an arrest warrant. They withdrew the arrest warrant pending further investigation and allowed him to leave. After leaving to the UK another investigator issued a request for further questioning and it was granted. As he had fled, they issued an international warrant for his arrest. He didn't want to leave the UK to be questioned, so they filed to have him extradited, which he appealed multiple times leading to where we are now.

That's not what happend. He had consensual sex with two woman, they found out that they'd both shared a man without a condom and went to the police asking if there was any way to force him to take an STD test. The prosecutor was not present, so a duty-prosecutor sat in and told the woman that under Swedish law, this counted as "rape". They objected and refused to sign the statement they had made. Assange was then "arrested in his absense" (that's a thing in Sweden) and this news was leaked to the press, who reported that he was being "hunted for rape". Assange saw the headline and presented himself to police to find out WTF was going on. They told him that a duty-prosecutor had made a mistake, and that when the actual prosecutor returned to work, he had immediately "un-arrested" Assange and closed the case. They took his statement anyway, told him he was innocent, and that he could leave the country if he wanted as the case was closed.Later, Claes Borgström, a lawyer and ex-lawmaker (who's responsible for Sweden's rediculous sex laws -- such as long, mandatory punitive remand periods for people accused of sex crimes, pre-trial), appealed the decision to close the case, and had it re-opened. The Swedish government (not the Judiciary) then issued the Interpol "red notice" against Assange, leading to his 500+ day detention without charge, and where we are now.

Honestly, there is no reason for him to be seeking asylum from being extradited from Sweden.

The reason that I created this topic, is because it's just become official that he does , within a reasonable doubt, have reason to seek asylum from being extradited from Sweden. That's the decision that Ecuador came to after reviewing all of the extensive evidence, from the irregularities in the sex allegations to the confirmation that the US has a sealed indictment against him, to the fact that the UK is threatening to violate an inviolable convention that is the basis for all modern diplomacy over a minor sex allegation. To say there's no reason to be worried is either extremely naive or gullible, or the words of a propagandist.

[Manning] hasn't been tortured. He's been put in solitary confinement for a very long time, but he's also caused one of the largest intelligence leaks in US history. I don't see how you could expect anything different.

The UN special rapporteur on torture declared that Manning's treatment (800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists) does amount to torture, that's what I was referencing with the word 'torture'. Keep in mind that in the US, water-boarding and electrocution aren't even called torture, but "enhanced interrogation"... So yes, in the US he hasn't been tortured He's been accused of a massive intelligence leak, and the Beacon of Freedom is supposed to value the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". One should expect that he wouldn't be being punished until after his show trial is over.

He clearly left Sweden after the investigation started and refuses to return.

No, this is absolutely false (see above - he left after the case was closed). Where did you get this idea?

The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it.

Because of all of the evidence that the US is going to punish him, and that Sweden will hand him over outside of the extradition process, and that the sex-crime allegations are an obvious front to allow this to occur.He's not avoiding the sex-crime trial (of which he'll possibly be found guilty BTW, of having "inappropriate" adult consensual sex, not "rape" in the English sense), he's avoiding the death penalty.

The counter claim could be made as to why he's putting in so much effort in avoiding it. It goes both ways. It was pretty simple until he refused to go back to Sweden, failed appealing extradition a handful of times, then sought asylum.

It's funny that you yourself defined fleeing as running away from danger, and you're surprised he doesn't want to go back. The question is more:

What danger is he fleeing?

Is he justified in fleeing it?

Think on this: If Swedish authorities just questioned him in the UK (not unheard of) they could establish whether there's solid grounds for extradition. The parties concerned (including Ecuador) may change their positions if evidence of wrongdoing on his part comes out of the process. Compared to the perceived risk to him of being extradited to the US and given a life sentence, Guantanamo or death, a vague on-again-off-again prosecution with flimsy evidence from Sweden rates low as a priority.

He had consensual sex with two woman, they found out that they'd both shared a man without a condom and went to the police asking if there was any way to force him to take an STD test. The prosecutor was not present, so a duty-prosecutor sat in and told the woman that under Swedish law, this counted as "rape". They objected and refused to sign the statement they had made.

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

The reason that I created this topic, is because it's just become official that he does , within a reasonable doubt, have reason to seek asylum from being extradited from Sweden. That's the decision that Ecuador came to after reviewing all of the extensive evidence,

Ecuador had already come to him after he planned to leave Sweden as a potential new host for wikileaks. To say they are an impartial third party would be false.

to the confirmation that the US has a sealed indictment against him

Confirmed by whom?

to the fact that the UK is threatening to violate an inviolable convention that is the basis for all modern diplomacy over a minor sex allegation.

He's a celebrity trying to get away with sexual assault by using his status and paranoia to gain asylum in a foreign country. What kind of precedent does it set if they allow it? That all you have to do if you commit a crime in the EU is run to the UK and seek asylum in a non-extraditionary country? The hyperbole knife cuts both ways.

The UN special rapporteur on torture declared that his treatment (800+ days of naked 23-hour a day solitary confinement, and being put on suicide watch by a general, against the advice of psychologists) does amount to torture, that's what I was referencing with the word 'torture'. Keep in mind that in the US, water-boarding and electrocution aren't even called torture, but "enhanced interrogation"...

That's totally inaccurate even by the source you use. It wasn't 800 days, it was July 29, 2010 to March 2, 2011 (significantly less than 800 days) when he was in Quantico. He was not naked at all. He had restricted clothing on account of his being deemed a suicide risk(shoes without laces etc), and was forced to be awake between 5AM(7AM on weekends) and 8PM [I've seen 10PM also] only (15-17 is significantly less than 23 hour days), was allowed out of his cell daily, was allowed books and magazines, and he was permanently moved in April, 2011 to a different facility.

Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

He's been accused of a massive intelligence leak, and the Beacon of Freedom is supposed to value the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". One should expect that he wouldn't be being punished until after his show trial is over.

He was also a military officer. Once you sign into service there are quite a number of extra laws you have to deal with. At most he should expect to have the same treatment as other high risk pre-trial criminals in this country, which is pretty well what he got.

He's not avoiding the sex-crime trial, he's avoiding the death penalty.

So he's been charged with a crime warranting the death penalty?_______________________________________________________________________________________________This all hinges on the fact that releasing the documents was legal in the first place, which is also totally questionable. Was it good that some of the things were released, probably. Was it extremely detrimental to the security of the US, it's allies, and it's informants, definitely. In some cases it put families in direct harm. Despite what's been said earlier, many of the documents released included the names of Afghan informants, their families, and their locations (http://www.msnbc.msn...s/#.UC3G2N1lSAo).

Is it just that they, taking action to remove themselves from an oppressive government that supported terrorist organizations, should be put directly into harms way because some guy can't do a thorough check before spilling the beans? What about the damages to finding future intelligence that could potentially save lives? But yea, outing the US on some legitimately bad things should totally give you a free pass on sexual assault and giving up the names and locations of informants who were still in harms way.

Yes it is, and it fits with the allegations. He had non-violent consensual sex. His "victims" even took him out to breakfast and threw him parties after these "crimes" took place, and tweeted to their friends about how fantastic it was to be hanging with (and fucking) such cool Wikileaks people.N.B. these are the accusations presented by Claes Borgstrom, after reopening the case, not the original allegations.Regarding these charges, they come from the original statements where prosecutors decided no crime had been committed."to hold her down in a sexual manner" - he was on top, consensually. That's often how sex works - one body is lying on another."having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used" - this is the main allegation, that they didn't use a condom, but she consented anyway even though having 2nd thoughts about it. This would not be illegal anywhere else..."deliberately molested ... in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity" - could be anything, again though, it was consensual, even if the state thinks it "violates sexual integrity". Maybe the state doesn't like blowjobs..."without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home" - she said she woke up to foreplay (after inviting him over the night before for the purpose of a 1-night stand) and then had consensual sex. She apparently assumed he was wearing a condom but didn't ask. That's called "...and once in the morning".

These accusations have all been created from the same original statements that were given before the case was closed, when a prosecutor threw it out as being frivolous, and which the "victims" refused to sign after being told Assange would be charged (they both were Wikileaks groupies, after all).

So again, even this 2nd round of inflated accusations still simply boil down to "inappropriately" having consensual sex without a condom, not "rape" in the English meaning of the word.

Confirmed by whom?

The fact that there is a grand-jury and an FBI/DOJ investigation into whether Wikileaks staff can be charged with conspiracy to commit espionage has been widely reported, e.g. it's in the ABC link in the OP. The fact that the GJ has issued a sealed indictment against Assange was confirmed in the Stratfor leak, which, yes, isn't the most trustworthy as the leak was obtained by Anonymous - however, the US has refused to deny this revelation. It has also been confirmed by Australian diplomatic cables (obtained under FOI requests) that show that Australian intelligence believes that there is indeed a sealed indictment.

He's a celebrity trying to get away with sexual assault by using his status and paranoia to gain asylum in a foreign country. What kind of precedent does it set if they allow it? That all you have to do if you commit a crime in the EU is run to the UK and seek asylum in a non-extraditionary country? The hyperbole knife cuts both ways.

The grant of asylum has nothing to do with the "sex without a condom" issue, at all. Ecuador has tried to help Sweden out here, and they've been uncooperative (demonstrating that the intent to move Assange into the Swedish remand system is more important to them than actually questioning him). Ecuador has granted him asylum to protect him from the very real threat of US persecution. He's been more than fair with Sweden in attempting to assist their investigation. You're deliberately ignoring this. Do you really think that destroying the 1961 vienna convention is less important than some celebrity sex scandal?

Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

Over 800 days of pre-trial detention (which is ok by the military justice system, yes). Stripped of his clothes and given a smock (oh yes, not forced nudity), as a punitive measure. 23-hour a day solitary confinement (not 23-hour forced wakefulness - where did you get that idea from?). Anyway, all I was saying is that the UN has confirmed he was tortured -- you can rationalize that however you want.

This all hinges on the fact that releasing the documents was legal in the first place, which is also totally questionable.

If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged? The legality hinges on the argument that Wikileaks doesn't count as journalism.You might also want to cast your eye back to the Ellsberg case, who did the same thing -- leak government secrets because he thought they were covering up war crimes. The fact that Ellsberg is free, and Manning is surely facing life in prison (or death) should tell you quite a bit about how the US has changed...

So he's been charged with a crime warranting the death penalty?

The investigation is for "conspiracy to commit espionage" - that's confirmed. Whether he's been charged or not is unknown - leaks show there are sealed charges, and this hasn't been denied. Even if this is false, the fact that there is an investigation against him for "conspiracy to commit espionage" is known, and yes, they can execute you for that.

As a side note, Ecuador seems very intent on doing whatever pisses the US off the most. Have fun trading with the West in the next century

Also, just wanted to clarify that my first post was what I perceived the media opinion in Sweden, not mine.My personal opinion is that I find it extremely dodgy that we're going through so much trouble to question him for a crime where its extremely difficult (in Sweden) to prosecute anyone for - even with solid evidence.

"having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used" - this is the main allegation, that they didn't use a condom, but she consented anyway even though having 2nd thoughts about it. This would not be illegal anywhere else...

The grant of asylum has nothing to do with the "sex without a condom" issue, at all. Ecuador has granted him asylum to protect him from the very real threat of US persecution. He's been more than fair with Sweden in attempting to assist their investigation. You're deliberately ignoring this.

I'm not deliberately ignoring anything. I started by giving only facts, and that was met with enormous hyperbole. I was just giving another hyperbolic scenario that's just as likely; that Ecuador would grant him asylum in exchange for him hosting wikileaks from there rather than from Switzerland, as was his original plan after Sweden fell through. Ecuador has already offered him a non-extradition agreement in the past before granting him asylum for this exact same thing.

I don't think that's what's happening, but it has at least as much evidence as the story you're painting.

Seriously, you're just making stuff up now.

Over 800 days of pre-trial detention.

If you're including the time after his pre-trial hearings, which started in 2011 then sure, but this happens quite regularly. It's not unusual for murder cases to be in pre-trial for years; I don't see how a trial for treason/espionage would be any different.

Stripped of his clothes and given a smock (oh yes, not forced nudity).

He was on suicide watch in prison. What do you expect them to do give him silk robes and fur moccasins?

23-hour a day solitary confinement (not 23-hour forced wakefulness - where did you get that idea from?)

I guess I misread wakefulness, but solitary confinement isn't that unusual for high risk inmates. He was still allowed to talk to guards, his lawyer, and his family and friends during visiting hours.

If publishing them was illegal, why isn't the NYT being charged? The legality hinges on the argument that Wikileaks doesn't count as journalism.]

The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge. Journalism, which is the closest thing to what wikileaks could be attributed to my knowledge, is a very dangerous game to be playing around the espionage act. I can only assume the NYT does a better job of drawing the line between what is and is not illegal to divulge. It's one thing to ruin the careers and relationships of some people, and entirely another to put lives in cross hairs.

The investigation is for "conspiracy to commit espionage" - that's confirmed. Whether he's been charged or not is unknown - leaks show there are sealed charges, and this hasn't been denied. Even if this is false, the fact that there is an investigation against him for "conspiracy to commit espionage" is known, and yes, they can execute you for that.

I'd say at the very least he deserves an investigation by the US. He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.

Indeed - but does it not strike you as at all unusual that such extreme and unprecedented measures would be taken for such a minor "crime"? Normally, police would not even bother launching an investigation, as it's impossible to prosecute. Yet, Swedish politicians force Interpol to issue their highest alert level (higher than a fleeing, murderous dictator!) and an EU arrest warrant normally reserved for dangerous and violent criminals, over a spurious and non-violent "crime" of consensual sex, outside of the regular Judicial process, causing a 500+ day detention in order to carry out an investigation, while refusing to actually carry out the investigation at all, without any charges being formally laid, and now with the threat of violating the 1961 vienna convention. None of this seems at all suspicious to you?

I'm not deliberately ignoring anything.

OK

[Manning] was on suicide watch in prison

N.B. at the direction of a General, against the wishes of the prison's psychologists. It was a punitive measure, not a measure taken to protect him. Again though, I don't have anything to prove about this -- I was just pointing out that someone more informed and trained that me has already declared his treatment as torture. I don't care if you can rationalize why his treatment is acceptable - it doesn't change the fact that the UN has declared it as torture. Surely Assange should be expecting similar treatment, especially as Sweden has cooperated with the US to torture it's innocent citizens before...

The NYT didn't release the names of any informants to my knowledge.

Wikileaks and it's partners (e.g. NYT) all worked together to perform the same redactions, together, as a team, after the US government refused to assist in the redaction process. It's a huge job to redact 250,000 documents, which is why they all cooperated on it.Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?

He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.

As Journalists are allowed to do, though try very hard to avoid. Do you actually have any proof that this occurred though? The Afghan war logs did unintentionally miss some names in the redaction process (as usual, they asked the US government to help in the redaction process, who refused), and thus named some Afghan informants (though no harm came to them), but the "cablegate" affair was redacted fully. You're regurgitating propaganda again.

I personally respect freedom of speech in all forms, sadly these days its more "freedom if politically approved" and I say this unrelated to the Assange case.

Now how do 'I' view this, someone who doesnt watch TV or anything media related, who ONLY decided to read up on this based on this thread alone.

Let me get this correct

He got hold of a lot of (boring) information relating to governments or specifically the US
Published them online
and now he is branded a terrorist?

If thats the case then I cant see what he did wrong, if he is a terrorist for that then every other journalist are too, I mean I am looking and skimming through this whole ordeal and it really sums down to "US unhappy because journalist is a journalist".

Edit: After reading more, I can say I find Assange personal life far more interesting than the political drama, which is odd for me since I am a political whore. Could someone actually link some decent stuff to read of wikileaks I am not going through 200k documents only to find generic political crap.

Because it's expected of me: I must say that The Guardian intentionally fucked up by intentionally tossing their decryption key out into the public forum, intentionally. It's not like they're the only organization committed to "guarding" the planet who has intentionally fucked the dog in terms of redaction, but these guys get a big gold star from me because they tried to capitalize on the whole situation as quickly as possible in order to make a buck. I wonder what Anonymous would think about this kind of situation, where a corporation is preying on an individual.

Wikileaks and it's partners (e.g. NYT) all worked together to perform the same redactions, together, as a team, after the US government refused to assist in the redaction process. It's a huge job to redact 250,000 documents, which is why they all cooperated on it.Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?

He knowingly divulged classified documents including the names of US informants who were still living in hostile territory and in close contact with a force who has publicly said it would kill anybody informing to the US just to make an example of them.

As Journalists are allowed to do, though try very hard to avoid. Do you actually have any proof that this occurred though? The Afghan war logs did unintentionally miss some names in the redaction process (as usual, they asked the US government to help in the redaction process, who refused), and thus named some Afghan informants (though no harm came to them), but the "cablegate" affair was redacted fully. You're regurgitating propaganda again.

It was in the link I posted earlier. The Times of London found names and locations of informants in the wikileaks documents.

edit: It's not propaganda. It happened, you just admitted it happened. Reporters without borders, a freedom of information activist group, publicly called them out on it. The fact that you are labeling it propaganda is just you trying to legitimize your own biases by disenfranchising my counters.

How can you trivialize leaking the names of informants in hostile territory with a group that's publicly threatened informants with death close by? Like I said before, some of what wikileaks is doing is fine. They have, however, crossed the line both legally and ethically.

Doing some good does not excuse you from following the law. It does not excuse you from your ethical and moral responsibilities.

Wikileaks and [NYT] worked together to perform the same redactions.Upon what are you basing your opinion that the Wikileaks cables have directly put people in danger where the (same) NYT cables haven't?

He knowingly divulged ... the names of US informants

As Journalists are allowed to do, though try very hard to avoid. Do you actually have any proof that this occurred though? The Afghan war logs did unintentionally miss some names in the redaction process ... but the "cablegate" affair was redacted fully.

It was in the link I posted earlier. The Times of London found names and locations of informants in the wikileaks documents.

edit: It's not propaganda. It happened, you just admitted it happened. Reporters without borders, a freedom of information activist group, publicly called them out on it. The fact that you are labeling it propaganda is just you trying to legitimize your own biases by disenfranchising my counters.

How can you trivialize leaking the names of informants in hostile territory with a group that's publicly threatened informants with death close by? Like I said before, some of what wikileaks is doing is fine. They have, however, crossed the line both legally and ethically.

Doing some good does not excuse you from following the law. It does not excuse you from your ethical and moral responsibilities.

I called this "propaganda" because you're greatly underestimating the amount of redaction that occurred, and exaggerating the impacts caused by mistaken gaps in redaction. For example, you claimed that "In some cases it put families in direct harm", which is complete hyperbole.

Read again: They didn't knowingly publish informants names, the vast majority of these names were redacted, but a small number slipped through. Everyone who published these documents and worked on the redaction process (i.e. Wikileaks, NYT, Guardian, etc) all fucked up there, by accident. It was not their intent to put anyone in harms way, and furthermore, the US govt was forced to admit that, despite trying hard to find a case, they could not find a single case where someone had come to harm because of these leaks (I'd like to think that they 'reeled in' the informants who were put at risk by the leak to prevent this).This was a huge ethical mishap by the journalists involved, yes, which is why they were even more thorough with future publications, but it wasn't intentional as you claimed.Further, it was in no way illegal. The people who stole the documents in the first place are legally in the wrong, not the journalists who published them. If you want to claim Wikileaks has broken the law by publishing these, then the NYT and many other media companies are also liable... which isn't the case.

What point are you trying to make here? That journalists aren't always ethical? Saying that Wikileaks has broken the law here is only true if they actually committed the theft in the first place, not if they were journalists publishing the material. A US conviction is going to rest on proving that Assange et al actually participated in the theft, along with Manning.

For a bit of perspective, contrast this accidental leaking of a few informants names with the deliberate leaking of the name of an undercover CIA field agent by the Bush administration for political gain and petty revenge. In that case, no journalists were charged, despite them being the unethical tool that broadcast the dangerous information.

[edit]BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy, as whenever anyone asks you a tricky question about one of your opinions, or demonstrates that you're speaking falsehoods, you simply ignore it and move on to the next bit of nit-picking (not just in this topic either). There's at least half a dozen un-answered questions directed at you here. Maybe I'll join you in this ignorance, it seems cozy...

I called this "propaganda" because you're greatly underestimating the amount of redaction that occurred, and exaggerating the impacts caused by mistaken gaps in redaction. For example, you claimed that "In some cases it put families in direct harm", which is complete hyperbole... and furthermore, the US govt was forced to admit that, despite trying hard to find a case, they could not find a single case where someone had come to harm because of these leaks (I'd like to think that they 'reeled in' the informants who were put at risk by the leak to prevent this).

I'm not hyperbolizing anything with this. The released names and locations of Afghan informants in a hostile region in relatively close proximity to an organization who has publicly announced that it would kill informants. That is all I am saying, and it is verifiable fact. If you do not consider putting informant families in close proximity to a group who has publicly expressed a will to kill informants "direct harm" then I don't see how you can find extraditing Assange to Sweden in any way harmful.

It is truly great that nobody was hurt, but to say that people's lives were not put in any sort of jeopardy is just wrong. Just because you don't get the bullet in Russian roulette doesn't make it a safe game in retrospect.

Read again: They didn't knowingly publish informants names, the vast majority of these names were redacted, but a small number slipped through. Everyone who published these documents and worked on the redaction process (i.e. Wikileaks, NYT, Guardian, etc) all fucked up there, by accident. It was not their intent to put anyone in harms way,

I'm aware it may not have been on purpose, but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant investigation. Similarly accidentally doing wrong does not excuse you from the repercussions. Nor does doing any amount of right excuse you from obeying the law of two countries(UK/Sweden).

What point are you trying to make here? That journalists aren't always ethical? Saying that Wikileaks has broken the law here is only true if they actually committed the theft in the first place, not if they were journalists publishing the material.

It's also illegal to solicit people to commit the crime, which, being a site whose express purpose is to leak confidential information, at least warrants investigation.

For a bit of perspective, contrast this accidental leaking of a few informants names with the deliberate leaking of the name of an undercover CIA field agent by the Bush administration for political gain and petty revenge. In that case, no journalists were charged, despite them being the unethical tool that broadcast the dangerous information.

You're saying this like I condone that instance or any other instances similar, such as Obama's use of the operation that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden. I do not condone either.

[edit]BTW, it's incredibly frustrating to try and talk to you, way2lazy, as whenever anyone asks you a tricky question about one of your opinions, or demonstrates that you're speaking falsehoods, you simply ignore it and move on to the next bit of nit-picking (not just in this topic either). There's at least half a dozen un-answered questions directed at you here. Maybe I'll join you in this ignorance, it seems cozy...

Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am. Perhaps it's time to get introspective and realize you're just doing the same thing arguing the opposite perspective.

I started posting in this thread just stating known facts. That was met with hyperbole and alarmism which drew me to give a counter perspective, not necessarily one I believe in, that was equally as hyperbolic on some points. I've stated I was being hyperbolic just to paint the opposite picture on some points previously.

To be clear, you are assuming that Assange shouldn't be extradited after failing his appeal multiple times. You are assuming that Sweden is extraditing him with the express purpose of getting him into American custody. You are assuming that should he be brought into American custody that he will not have a fair trial, and that he will be charged with the death penalty. Without a very solid case I find the latter unlikely as it would cause huge political fallout by the media during an election year.

The most likely scenario is that the US would have extradited him from the UK anyway if it wanted to, but he was already being extradited to Sweden. The US probably didn't want to pressure UK courts with a decision between two extraditions. Sweden and the UK probably don't want to say he won't be extradited to the US because it will break treaties with the US; this does not mean they will not give investigation into extradition before doing/not doing so. This is what I think the most likely situation is, but I'm not running in here screaming foul because the only facts we know are that he is avoiding being questioned in an investigation for his sexual assault of two women in Sweden.

Ok, so your point is that the US should be investigating Assange? Ok, good, they are. I'm not sure why you decided to argue this point so fervently when no-one suggested the opposite...

Go back and read your own replies. You're at least as bad as I am.

Point me to somewhere where I've been asked a direct question (you known, a sentence that ends in a "?") and haven't been able to answer it.

If you can, I'll answer it, otherwise I'm out. This is insane.

I started posting in this thread just stating known facts.

All of your posts in this thread, except the last few have been presenting falsehoods as facts!! That is not a perspective issue -- you've been making statements that are provably false, which is not "just stating known facts".You're extremely ignorant and misinformed about this issue (hence presenting falsehoods), and ignore all evidence presented against your "facts", which is what I was talking about before. How on earth can you go around telling lies, be shown that they are lies, then continue to ignore the evidence to the contrary. I'm not qualified to deal with this, sorry.

Perhaps the release of the decryption key had been an "accident" made under the assumption that the (availability of the) data was time-sensitive. So much for "fact-checking" journalists then!

They fucked the dog, and tried to cover their asses with a non-apology.

So, where does the past self-appointed public spokesperson of Anonymous work? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, but this blind infatuation with journalists is totally unrealistic; they're professional stalkers who sell strife, by definition.

So, where does the past self-appointed public spokesperson of Anonymous work? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry, but this blind infatuation with journalists is totally unrealistic; they're professional stalkers who sell strife, by definition.

As a side note, Ecuador seems very intent on doing whatever pisses the US off the most. Have fun trading with the West in the next century

Also, just wanted to clarify that my first post was what I perceived the media opinion in Sweden, not mine.My personal opinion is that I find it extremely dodgy that we're going through so much trouble to question him for a crime where its extremely difficult (in Sweden) to prosecute anyone for - even with solid evidence.

You have to ignore the Bonniers and Schibsted owned media, They are both extremely biased. (Unfortunatly those 2 companies own pretty much all swedish media so there isn't that many trustworthy sources of news available, usually its best to browse around foreign newssites aswell (Our situation is pretty much like the one in the US where the big media companies are essentially pushing their own agendas mixing heavily biased news reporting with tabloid articles)

I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!